View Profile
View Forum Posts
View Forum Threads
View Friends
View Blog Entries
For somebody who wants the political section closed down and criticizes others for posting threads, he sure has done a lot of himself hasn't he?... This is after all a Domain Forum and we should ONLY be discussing DOMAINS.
Notice the absence of a link, A link provides FACTS and we don't want to talk about those do we? NO, all we want to talk about is how unjust the war was and how Obama single handedly brought the war to an end.
Despite ongoing concerns about the ability of Iraq's security forces to prevent renewed instability and violence, the Obama administration has according to reports in the US decided that all but 150 to 200 US troops of the remaining 40,000 will go home under the terms of a 2008 agreement.
So much for ALL.
"under the terms of a 2008 agreement.", Who was President in 2008?
US 'to announce full withdrawal of troops from Iraq'
Washington is all but certain to abandon plans to keep several thousand US troops in Iraq beyond the end of the year, terminating its deployment nearly nine years after the invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.
Despite ongoing concerns about the ability of Iraq's security forces to prevent renewed instability and violence, the Obama administration has according to reports in the US decided that all but 150 to 200 US troops of the remaining 40,000 will go home under the terms of a 2008 agreement.
The key issue has been the failure of the Iraqi parliament to provide a guarantee of immunity from prosecution to US troops that stay.
US officials had assumed that the earlier deal with the Iraqis would be renegotiated to allow 4-5,000 American forces to remain in a training role beyond the deadline of Dec 31, 2011.
But Iraq's leadership has been divided on the issue. Some have argued the further training and US help was vital, particularly to protect Iraq's airspace and gather security intelligence. Others, particularly the Iranian-backed Sadrists, have deeply opposed any American troop presence. Shiite militiamen have threatened attacks on any American forces that remain past the deadline.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has told US military officials that he does not have the votes in parliament to provide immunity to the American trainers, as Washington has demanded.
The official line from the White House and the Pentagon is that discussions with Iraq were "ongoing".
But senior administration and Pentagon officials are now reportedly resigned to the fact that all remaining American troops will leave Iraq except for about 160 soldiers attached to the US embassy.
There will still be a massive American diplomatic presence, while about 5,000 security contractors and personnel will be tasked with helping protect American diplomats and facilities.
The near total troop withdrawal will raise fears that security gains made in the past few years.
Sen John McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate armed services committee, accused the Obama administration of "badly handling" negotiations with the Iraqis.
"There is a renewed risk of greater violence and renewed Iran penetration in southern Iraq, and a possible return to sectarian conflict," he told CNN.
In an interview on Saturday night, Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, said that giving US troops immunity from prosecution was "impossible".
But he has accepted the need for his troops to be trained on weaponry, including F16 jets and Abrahams tanks, that the Iraqi military is currently buying from the US.
Saad Muttalibi, a senior official in his ruling State of Law party, said formal negotiations had yet to begin on the issue. But he said it was difficult to get agreement on any measure in Iraq's current fractured parliament, let alone something as controversial as immunity for American soldiers.
A refusal to allow American troops to stay in the country will be regarded as a victory for Iranian-backed Shia radicals, such as the Sadrists, who occupy a large bloc of seats and are in an uneasy alliance with State of Law.
Mr Muttalibi said American troops would have immunity from prosecution over accidents associated with training but not off-base.
"As chief commander Mr Maliki has accepted that as we are in the process of purchasing military hardware we will require trainers but how this is done is not in the government's jurisdiction. It has to be stated by parliament," he said.
He said that the numbers of troops was low hundreds rather than the thousands originally envisaged by some US military commanders.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...from-Iraq.html
Originally Posted by biggedon 
Bookmarks